Yes, Taylor Lorenz is right...

Wait don't angrily comment yet, it's her stance on Section 230. Let me explain..

Whenever you see Taylor Lorenz, you hear her pushing various agendas. The most notable is the laws governing the tech environment, specifically Section 230. These legislative provisions are often ignored by the public, and Lorenz has remarked that neither end of the political spectrum fully comprehends their implications. When bipartisan efforts are undertaken to regulate the technology industry, the resulting legislation may produce unintended consequences. I believe after watching her videos on the subject and doing research, she is likely right. To understand why I have to say Taylor Lorenz is right about Section 230, and why we should sound the alarm about the various ill-advised pieces of legislation being considered by Congress and statehouses across our country, we should begin with the history of Section 230.

Section 230: Origins in the 1990s

The year is 1996, a great year if you were me and if you were an Internet service provider. I was a Junior in high school: I  logged on to the Internet for the first time at my high school, had a summer internship at a community theater company, got my first job, and so much more. Being a teen in the 90’s was something else. The Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was signed into law on February 8, 1996, was a little known section that had been added by two members of Congress, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) , who were concerned by recent court cases that could stymie the Internet.

The CDA was primarily designed to stop indecent material from being shown to children via the internet. “ Some portions of the CDA directly imposed liability for transmitting obscene or harassing material online,2 including two provisions that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 1997 “ ^[1]. The Supreme Court's reasoning was that it infringed on adults' First Amendment rights and was so broad that parents would not have the agency to determine what was appropriate to show their children.^[1] However, Section 230 was upheld and has shaped our experience with the Internet. The section defined the legal responsibilities of Internet Service Providers. A recent case created a troubling precedent: if moderation was added, the ISP would go from being seen as a distributor, like a bookstore or library, to a publisher.

The case that had the congressmen concerned involved Stratton Oakmont Inc. and Prodigy Services Co., and the claim was that since the ISP Prodigy said they moderated the environment, it was more family friendly. With that promise to consumers, Prodigy seemed to open itself up to a defamation lawsuit from Stratton Oakmont, Inc. In 1994, a post on the Money Talks bulletin board stated that the investment firm was involved in fraud. When the case went to trial in 1995, Stratton Oakmont Inc. won. With this case weighing heavily on their minds and the potential to harm free speech rights, the Congressmen wrote Section 230. Let the record note that the unknown user was right, Stratton Oakmont was involved in fraud, and would be successfully prosecuted by the federal government. This story is told in the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street”. ^[2]

The importance of Section 230 was to create an environment that would allow ISP’s and later social media platforms to do some moderation but not be liable for missing some content. Without this section, there wouldn't be any form of moderation allowed. Inspired by Good Samaritan laws, which protect medical professionals who step in to help during a medical emergency, the Congressmen wrote Section 230 to allow ISPs to do moderation without liability. Section 230 is only 26 words long and has shaped the Internet environment since its enactment:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” ^[3]

Section 230 has protected internet publishers, but it hasn't been without being challenged in court. There have been cases that tested what was meant by 'publisher'. Two of the most notable are Force v Facebook and Lemmon V Snapchat. Force v Facebook alleged that the algorithm had changed Facebook from being a publisher to a content creator. The court disagreed in that case that algorithms had turned Facebook into a creator, but said the algorithms are just tools to help users find third-party content they would be interested in. In Lemon v. Snapchat, the court found Snapchat liable because its speed filter design encouraged reckless speeding. This meant they were not protected by Section 230. ^[4] The clear implication is that the design can be seen as a liability for these companies.

The Rise of Social Media and Algorithms

The early days of social media were simpler, you logged in, and your feed was filled only with the people you had decided to follow. As time went by, it wasn’t just about the ability to connect with people but also their ability to get your data and sell it to other companies to use. This was the rise of Algorithms that have changed what you see on social media. Algorithms are now designed specifically to hit the brain's dopamine centers, keeping you scrolling for hours. The Big Tech companies have purposely created products designed to keep people of all ages on their platforms. In March 2026, a federal court in California found Meta and YouTube were liable for knowingly designing an addictive environment that caused someone to suffer mental health issues. The client had been on social media since the age of 9, and as a result, she had suffered depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.^{[5] [6]} This is the first of many cases that will be brought to trial. It’s been established that Section 230 doesn’t cover the design issues of algorithms. As these cases make their way through the courts, we need to turn to new regulations and laws to address the problems of the internet.  

​The most concerning problems are related to how to keep children safe on the internet. With the anonymity users online have, there have been some disturbing cases involving the exploitation of minors. How can we keep them safe online? The new legislation generally tries to create laws that allow us to identify who is a child and who is an adult. Age verification and age restrictions to keep kids offline and away from unsuitable material. The bill that is going through Congress right now, Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), is making its way through Congress, and it addresses some of the concerns. It has three key areas it hopes to address. Duty of care, Design Requirements and Reports, and Audits.  (source) The exact language of the final bill hasn’t been cemented. The House changed the language, and many parent advocacy groups say it removes much of the Duty of care language they wanted in the bill. ^{[7] [8]}The requirements listed would require platforms to have some sort of age verification. This is definitely causing privacy advocates to raise the alarm. ^[9][10] Cause while age verification seems like the right course of action, it comes with its own baggage. We don’t have to guess at the results; we just have to see how it worked for other countries.

International Approaches to Online Safety

Both the UK and Australia have implemented laws restricting children's access to social media. The UK’s law requires age verification via ID or facial recognition software. The facial recognition software was shown to be easy to bypass or not work at all. Kids have used many methods to get around age verification, from using random pictures of adults online to, in one case, drawing a mustache to bypass the facial recognition software. ^[11] And ID verification is still troublesome, as bad actors now have a new avenue to obtain people’s private information. Discord hired a 3rd party to handle ID verification, and that 3rd party was hacked, releasing the private information of its UK users ^[12]. VPN usage has soured and predatory “free” VPN in the app store are often scams that lure people in. Many platforms have implemented restrictions that seem restrictive and unnecessary. Some sites have shut down completely because they couldn’t afford to comply with the law, even though they hosted only benign content. ^[13]The reports from kids are that they are finding ways around the restrictions. Which means they are now on social media without the support they had before, because everyone assumes the sites have verified their age. There have been other consequences of the age verification.

The platforms most affected are the smaller ones. ^[14] The Big Tech companies will be able to afford to hire a third party and pay the fines if something goes wrong. Or even defend themselves in court. It's the smaller websites that will be harmed. Forums and chat groups focused on niche interests could find themselves having to move to a big tech platform because the logistics and the risks of operating are too great. Also, the innovation of new sites would be lower because the start-up costs would be too high. Beyond that, access to the internet has helped many LGBTQ and isolated teens find community and support. We do need to censor information for kids, but we need to make sure we don’t hand it over to the most hyperbolic individuals in society. The schoolbook banning movements we’ve seen prove we have to be careful. ^[15]

A critical issue is the fundamental right to privacy. I know many will groan and wonder why that matters. It's more about how these organizations will use the information they gather; the US currently has poor data collection laws to protect citizens online. We have to rely on their word that they’re keeping it to themselves.  Once we are forced to provide our ID, there will be risks associated with storing our official government identification. Companies have a hard time now keeping users' private data safe from internet hackers. It’s a matter of whether these companies can guarantee that our information won’t end up on the dark web. They haven’t done a very good job historically. Reports of data breaches seem to occur regularly.

​Finding a Path Forward: Recommendations

The best course of action? In my opinion, it is most likely a middle-of-the-road approach. The companies need to start being transparent about the algorithms they use and allow users to determine how they want to engage with the platforms. Offering users the ability to remove or adjust algorithms to their tastes. Reducing the gambling dopamine triggers that keep people scrolling. Reminders within a platform that it’s been x amount of time and that the user might need to go touch grass. This would benefit everyone. Kids need to be educated about how to use the internet safely, which means explaining the real risks. Teaching online safety from elementary onward. This will allow our kids to be knowledgeable about how to keep themselves safe as children and as adults. Creating a future generation that knows how to stay safe online. While we’re at it, we can require parents to get some education on how to keep their kids safe, including using parental controls and other methods. Providing materials on ways to talk to children regarding the risks they might encounter online. We also need comprehensive data privacy laws that protect everyone’s data, including kids'.  I’d also say that breaking up some of the larger tech companies would be a good idea. Similar to what we have done in the past with Standard Oil and the Bell systems.

Ultimately, these proposed laws demand that we sacrifice our fundamental right to privacy, handing over even more personal data to corporations that have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to safeguard it. Rather than addressing the real dangers facing children online, such overreaching regulations threaten to stifle innovation, drive out smaller communities, and erode the very freedoms that have defined the open internet. The solution does not lie in blanket surveillance or ill-conceived mandates, but in nuanced, well-informed policy that protects both safety and liberty.

I have to concede that Taylor Lorenz is right, these laws are just “... surveillance laws that would censor the internet, strip us all of our ability to freely access information and actually cause great harm to children…” ^[16]